Is it naive to pay for music and books in 2013?

[winters860]

Good post. But cannot you see how wrong it is to have music "owned" by someone and you have an agreement to use it as you like, but NOT owning the music itself?

As a consumer, it offends the hell out of me. Where did I say it didn't? Still, I'm a Netflix subscriber. Convenience trumps conscience, in this case. I'm not alone.

What I'm getting at, much like in my discussion of piracy, is that to argue whether it's right or wrong is a red herring. It's already happened, and will continue to become more prevalent.

 

[toups]

So, technically, when I quoted you just now I infringed on your Copyright? :scratch2:

Actually the question is less tongue-in-cheek than you might think!

Not being a lawyer, I would argue that the "fair use" doctrine comes into play since you only quoted a portion of the post as part of a discussion to make a point. The limited use bolsters your "fair use" claim.

Now as to whether I own the rights to the post or not would partially depend on the "terms of service" of the Audiokarma site. However, it is not clear from a brief search that such claims of copyright ownership by a boards is being held up in court. Normally I would own the copyright, but the "terms of service" might claim otherwise. BTW, I couldn't find the "terms of service" for this site quickly.

The reason this question is not just academic is that this issue has arisen with respect to pictures that have been posted to sites where the "terms of service" state the forum owner is given all rights to any posted material and not just a right to use the material.

As was stated earlier, this is a complicated topic (and I'll add convoluted one.)

 

[secretguy]

I dont know what it is, but I keep running into people online who think its fine to get all their entertainment needs from the Pirate Bay and other torrent sites. I had an argument with a former workmate a while back - I could actually feel my blood rising - where he flatout could not see that musicians would stop releasing anything if they were never paid for their output.

I've mentioned this in another thread previously, but a run-in with a serial thief (and that's what it is IMO) has fired me up. I'm no fan of record companies and management making billions, but that's someone else's problem - if I pay for music on a CD or as a download, I'd like to think I'm helping the artist(s) and engineers responsible for the creation of that music - same goes for books. People dont spent a lifetime developing these skills to have nefarious little shits download their blood, sweat and tears for free.

Thoughts ?

As a working and recording musician: Thank you!

 

[Karl vd Berg]

As was stated earlier, this is a complicated topic (and I'll add convoluted one.)

I want my part! You reproduced my words without written permission!

 

[deeezy]

If you like worthless garbage, by all means obtain all of your "music" and "books" by downloading them for free. If you like to overpay for things of low or questionable quality, buy new stuff. If you like really good quality music and books, buy older things that were made back in the days when quality was actually considered important, and pay next to nothing for them.

 

[jefrodigital]

If you like worthless garbage, by all means obtain all of your "music" and "books" by downloading them for free. If you like to overpay for things of low or questionable quality, buy new stuff. If you like really good quality music and books, buy older things that were made back in the days when quality was actually considered important, and pay next to nothing for them.

What if I'm downloading a FLAC rip of an original pressing of Abbey Road, which costs way more than next to nothing.

 

[zebra03]

Downloading is not stealing. Stealing would be to take the actual cd. Call it what you want, but stealing it aint.

It is stealing , no matter what you want to say . I am not judging you in any way because I do want to hear your points . Like I said , I have had someone download for me and I KNOW it does not exclude me from breaking the law .

IMHO , downloading is the same as walking into the store and taking it off the shelf .

 

[hifijohn]

I dont know what it is, but I keep running into people online who think its fine to get all their entertainment needs from the Pirate Bay and other torrent sites. I had an argument with a former workmate a while back - I could actually feel my blood rising - where he flatout could not see that musicians would stop releasing anything if they were never paid for their output.

I've mentioned this in another thread previously, but a run-in with a serial thief (and that's what it is IMO) has fired me up. I'm no fan of record companies and management making billions, but that's someone else's problem - if I pay for music on a CD or as a download, I'd like to think I'm helping the artist(s) and engineers responsible for the creation of that music - same goes for books. People dont spent a lifetime developing these skills to have nefarious little shits download their blood, sweat and tears for free.

Thoughts ?

have you been to the library and checked out material?? have you paid royalties on that material???
have you ever bought any music or video at a swapmeet/flea market/garage sale?? have you paid royalties on that stuff??? we've been 'stealing' for generations. the internet just make it easier, yes it is illegal,but it always has been done.

 

[Art K.]

I dont know what it is, but I keep running into people online who think its fine to get all their entertainment needs from the Pirate Bay and other torrent sites. I had an argument with a former workmate a while back - I could actually feel my blood rising - where he flatout could not see that musicians would stop releasing anything if they were never paid for their output.

I've mentioned this in another thread previously, but a run-in with a serial thief (and that's what it is IMO) has fired me up. I'm no fan of record companies and management making billions, but that's someone else's problem - if I pay for music on a CD or as a download, I'd like to think I'm helping the artist(s) and engineers responsible for the creation of that music - same goes for books. People dont spent a lifetime developing these skills to have nefarious little shits download their blood, sweat and tears for free.

Thoughts ?

Agreed!:thmbsp:

 

[trhee]

Libraries lend copyrighted materials based on the "First Sales" doctrine and have special provisions to do so. Did you also know that libraries pay more for books, periodicals, CD's, DVD's, etc. than normal retail prices in order to account for the multiple uses? So in essence, the library has paid these fees for it's members. This is why it is not illegal. It would be illegal however to borrow CD's or DVD's from the library and burn yourself a copy.

have you been to the library and checked out material?? have you paid royalties on that material???

 

[JoeESP9]

Downloading is not stealing. Stealing would be to take the actual cd. Call it what you want, but stealing it aint.

Have you never heard of theft of intellectual property?

I don't endorse this, and I have no idea how it could be done anyway. Kind of like the atomic bomb. Once the secret is out there is no "putting the genie back into the bottle". All we can do is accept it is a fact of life and living with it. It is, however, up to each of us to make our own choice, since without choice, there would be no reason to live. I choose to not download and pay for my music simply because I am a perfectionist and I want the real deal and a backup for any errors. Moreover, I understand the artist will not be around or continue to make good music without support.

I wonder if there is any moral issue with any AKer here that has bought an item they KNEW was worth far higher than what they paid. Is that not wrong; to rob a granny of money for her estate simply because she didn't know that "black gear with green meters" sitting in the room had value? I don't see the difference really. Principle is the same. Don't get me wrong; I would love to get something for next to nothing, but it doesn't seem to happen.

I too choose to buy music. That it's mostly physical "hard" copy is because I want the backup hard copy although I usually rip to FLAC. For high or higher definition files the only option is to download. I pay for those. I can only hope that the artist gets his/her percentage from those transactions. My buy attitude also applies to book and magazines. I pay to download books from Barnes and Noble and Amazon. A also buy hardback and paperback books.

As for acquiring gear at extremely low prices. I have recent first hand experience with this. I recently started a thread about a gift (Rotel RSX1067) that my speech therapist presented me with. I told her that the receiver was a $2K+ item originally and used models are currently going for $500+ on ebay. I then offered to pay something, anything to compensate her. She refused to accept anything.

I don't feel that I cheated her because I informed her what the item is currently selling for and offered to pay something for it.

BTW: It's a honey of a receiver!

 

[jazzmans]

Nope - your justification does not mean it is not theft.
Anything you get from the artists should be paid for ...

You should go read Robert Fripp's blog - he talked about how he and King Crimson got cheated by their management company
and by large record companies for royalties. He realized there were a limited number of hours in a day so he could either practice and make music
or track down the money they were owned owned. So for nearly 10 years, he basically stopped playing concerts and doing records while he tried to
get acknowledgement from the company that they owned them all big time.
He is just recently reaching closure on this process ... and is now talking about reforming King Crimson.

Its pretty enlightening ... even the part about their music turning up on Spotify, even tho there was no contract for Spotify to play their music.
He'd file a copyright dispute, the music would be removed, then a bit later it would return.

Since Crimson hasn't toured in years - how would they get paid from "concerts and merchandises?"

http://www.dgmlive.com/diaries.htm

Theft is theft, doesn't matter if its E.G. Management, Universal Music Group, or you downloading songs you never paid for.

Crimson gets some small portion of what I've paid for all my KC albums, some (in the court) I've bought too many times to count now.


This is a difficult question, and not as easily pigenholed as y'all would like it to be.

Twelve years ago, My brother gave me a burned CD that just said 'the greatest ****ing band in the world' on it..... it was Tallahassee by The Mountain Goats. Had he never given it to me, I'd likely never have heard of them, and would probably never have bought ALL their albums.


Same goes for the Cure. Back in the early eighties, a girlfriend gave me a 'mix' tape that ended up being mostly 'head on the door' and if I hadn't fallen in love with that tape, I doubt I'd have bought the album 'Faith' when I saw it at the store, thus leading to me owning everything the cure has ever put out.


Grateful Dead. They've allowed 'sharing' of tapes of their concerts for, well, always. I own every dead show (downloaded from archive.net) and own every released CD they've ever made, both studio and live. My first Dead tapes were all 'bootlegs'...

There is a large aspect of 'getting the music out there' to the people leads to more people buying the music, and more people going to the concerts, (which with the absolutely piratical recording contracts is the only way most artists can make any money.)

 

[Fisherdude]

So let me get this straight.

Most audiophiles here and abroad have had tape decks with record buttons, maybe a DAT player with a record button, or perhaps a DCC deck or MD deck that could make a digital recording of a source. Moreover, I suspect some have had the first gen CD-R machines, and most likely ALL have a computer with a CD or DVD burner in them. You incorrectly assume I am making recordings of my OWN music, neglecting to recall that there is NOTHING stopping me, physically or otherwise, from borrowing a friends CD for recording. I know all about SCMS and it applies to first gen recordings so that you cannot make a copy of a copy (another audio screw up).

I would not take such high moral ground on this since, as I have stated, the audio companies have made, FOR LEGAL SALE, equipment to make recordings that may be ILLEGAL. You cannot have it both ways. Either the copying is outright illegal and the machines are NOT allowed for sale with record buttons OR there must of been some "allowed allotment" of recordings deemed acceptable. Moreover, I will counter in the tape days the recording on cassette was not likely to equal to quality of the original source, either tape or LP, so there was an incentive to have an original. Digital changed all that. Most all used CDS on the market now have been copied once and then sold just so someone could download it. Stupid if you ask me, but a fact.

And to be clear: I have NEVER downloaded music for free and I have BOUGHT every one of my CDs. I have not lent out any for borrow for "free copying" either. This is possible when one is an introvert by nature.

Before you respond to my posts, you need to read what I said. And, you need to read it for understanding, instead of just letting your eyes roll across the monitor while you work yourself into a rage over what you intend to say.

So let me get this straight...

I would not take such high moral ground on this since, as I have stated, the audio companies have made, FOR LEGAL SALE, equipment to make recordings that may be ILLEGAL. You cannot have it both ways. Either the copying is outright illegal and the machines are NOT allowed for sale with record buttons OR there must of been some "allowed allotment" of recordings deemed acceptable...

Not one thing you said makes logical sense. The fact that an item exists that can be used for illegal purposes does not make that item illegal, nor does it automatically make it legal for all possible uses. By your logic it should be illegal to manufacture, sell, buy, or own an automobile, because it's possible to use an automobile to commit a crime. Or, because it's clearly legal to manufacture, sell, buy, and own an automobile, it should be perfectly legal to use one to run people over and kill them.

You can't have it both ways.

I clearly and distinctly said that if you already own copyrighted music, you are allowed to legally make a copy for your own use. Since you are allowed to legally make a copy for your own use, you can clearly use the equipment available to do that. How else could you make a copy? How does that make the equipment being used for a completely legal purpose somehow illegal to manufacture, sell, buy, own, or use?

Not to mention that your comments are utterly off topic.

 

[krowmagnum]

Copying in those days was a long, ardous task, done one copy at a time, and barely made a ripple in the grand scheme of financial makings. With todays fast and easy digital downloads and the internet as a distribution media, it's a different story where serious financial damage can result.

Perhaps you would feel differently if someone felt the same way about your car or other possessions, and acted on it?

Just because one CAN do something doesn't mean one should.

Copying is not illegal. Downloading is not illegal. Distributing it is Illegal. ie: uploading.
Sharing a cassette with a friend that was copied from an LP is no different than some anonymous P2P network sharing a copyrighted item with me.

Same thing different decade.

Don't confuse violating copyright laws with theft. The entertainment industry wants us to think its the same but it's not. Copyright laws are civil laws. Theft falls under criminal law. It is not the same thing and your analogy doesn't hold water.

 

[Fisherdude]

have you been to the library and checked out material?? have you paid royalties on that material???
have you ever bought any music or video at a swapmeet/flea market/garage sale?? have you paid royalties on that stuff??? we've been 'stealing' for generations. the internet just make it easier, yes it is illegal,but it always has been done.

Sorry, all incorrect.

have you been to the library and checked out material?? have you paid royalties on that material???...

The library paid the royalties when they purchased the material. You're allowed to borrow/check it out/listen to it, as long as you don't make a copy.

...have you ever bought any music or video at a swapmeet/flea market/garage sale?? have you paid royalties on that stuff???...

The royalties were paid by the original purchaser. He's allowed to dispose of the original music, as long as he doesn't keep a copy.

...we've been 'stealing' for generations. the internet just make it easier, yes it is illegal,but it always has been done.

Just because some people steal doesn't make it ok for everybody to steal. Just because it's always been done doesn't make it ok either.

 

[Ths364]

Copying is not illegal. Downloading is not illegal. Distributing it is Illegal. ie: uploading.
Sharing a cassette with a friend that was copied from an LP is no different than some anonymous P2P network sharing a copyrighted item with me.

Same thing different decade.

Don't confuse violating copyright laws with theft. The entertainment industry wants us to think its the same but it's not. Copyright laws are civil laws. Theft falls under criminal law. It is not the same thing and your analogy doesn't hold water.

Intellectual property is still property. What doesn't hold water is the justification that stealing intellectual property is not theft. Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's not contemptible,wrong,unjustifiable etc.

 

[jefrodigital]

I'm a photographer who puts his photographs online free for non-commercial use (with attribution) but I forbid commercial use. Recently (see my thread on it), a comercial entity used on of my photographs for free. Is it theft? You damned sure skippy it is. And I collected a license fee from that entity, too.

What some of you are saying is that since the commercial entity didn't steal a paper photograph, they just copied some bits, that my property wasn't taken. Respectfully, up yours.

Wait, so the company didn't have to pay thousands of dollars and face jail time?

 

[krowmagnum]

Everyone seems to be hung up on what the "law" says is right and wrong. That's a matter of opinion.

The Law... the same "law" that stole every bit of dignity and rights of native americans so corporations and white people could take what the natives had used for centuries ? Not to mention killed millions when they fought back for their rights ? That Law ?

Or this Law... the same "law" that allows Wall St. bankers to double bet on bad loans they sold so they can profit even more when the loan defaults ?
Nobody ever goes to jail and only a few are fined a fraction of the billions in profits they made doing the deals. Then the bankers ask for trillions in tax dollars and the "law" gives it to them ? That Law ?

I could go on and on... the point is if you are blindly following the "law" because the "law" tells you to I think you fit into a special category I reserve for fools and sheep.

If large enough corporations could figure out a way to make money off me filesharing copyrighted material the laws would change to accommodate the new will of the large corporations.

 

[krowmagnum]

Intellectual property is still property. What doesn't hold water is the justification that stealing intellectual property is not theft. Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it's not contemptible,wrong,unjustifiable etc.

I didn't say it's not illegal. It's illegal but it's civil, not criminal. And therefor NOT theft.

 

[jsisk]

I think the quality of music being released today (sound quality as well as quality of talent) is on a path that will soon lead to it being worth exactly what those who steal it are paying. Nothing, zip, zilch, zero.

Fast forward 25 years and there will be no music "industry". People will upload their "music" to the internet and others will download it for free. (directly into their cranial implants) Gone will be concerts, record stores, iTunes, etc. All music will be free, but songs will be loaded with commercial advertising. Society will be on a collision course with disaster, but it really won't matter much as the years of blasting messages into space with the SETI project will have finally attracted the attention of an advanced alien race and they will be searching for a new food source. (Soylent Green)